Digital Technology and Mediation: A Challenge to Activity Theory

Abstract

present activity theory, wrote under the heading «medi ation as a key»: «It is somewhat amazing that in the recent theoretical discussion concerning the concept of activity, very little attention is paid to the idea of mediation» [3, p. 28]. That is a correct balance, indeed, and therefore Engestrom is also right calling the idea of mediation «the first prerequisite for any fruitful elaboration» when reflecting the importance of digital technology and its impact on the societal life as a whole. Even more impor tant, however, is the emphasis, which characterizes the underlying theoretical understanding. Mediation is not only a key, as Engestrom writes, it ought to be said: mediation is the key! From this point of view it is clear — though still not yet obvious — that the global process of digitalizing and digitalized mediation of every aspect of human practice and activity is the hardest challenge activity theory have ever met. I therefore accepted with great pleasure the proposal to speak about digital technology as a challenge to activity theory. At first let me confirm that I do not intend to explain in great details what terms like «digital technology» or «web 2.0» or «New Media» exactly mean. Although I think that you certainly meet very similar differences in knowing and practical competencies concerning those «New Media» in your country as we do in ours, I sup pose that all of you know what phenomena like e.g. face book, youtube or other forms of social bookmarking are alike, since dealing with new technical devices within teaching and learning in higher education is a special object of your investigation long since, as far as I know. But I think it being absolutely necessary to make clear what we are talking about, if we reflect on mediation and the Vygotskian or the activity theoretical approach to mediation in particular, leaving aside for the moment the differences between Vygotsky and Leontiev. I'll therefore start first with some remarks on cultur al historical psychology and its model of mediation and try to analyse its structure and functioning. In a second step I shall turn to Leontiev and describe the different model of mediation in activity theory. (The distinguishing between cultural historical psychology and activity theory is intentional as we will see later.) With my last step I shall focus on the two theses which I like to present to you: First — what is not really surprising after all — nei ther cultural historical psychology nor activity theory is by itself able to solve the challenging task of media tion put by New Media or digital technology. .. ..